Recent content by AlexX

Why should we be so open to make rules around them? Odds are none will be making it past the first couple rounds, so there's hardly any need to cater to them when they aren't going to be lasting very long. I'm not saying this to be mean, I'm saying it because it's true... Rules added purely for...

I'd like to ask you again why you think 9 stages takes too long. The people going to a tournament are going to already know what stages to strike ASAP (unless they're scrubs, but frankly we should not be making rules based around them), so it's only going to take a few extra seconds at most...

They don't have to be. You're saying we should kill variety for the sake of scrubs that probably don't even know what counterpicking is? No, we shouldn't have to punish ourselves for the sake of players that won't be lasting the first couple rounds. After that point your hypothetical situation...

The latter isn't going to happen with experienced players (in fact, I can't see that happening with anyone over 12). If anything the first example you gave is more likely to occur, especially since experienced players know what to strike right off the bat. Besides, the difference isn't so...

The time difference is a matter of seconds and I don't see how it affects efficiency (unless some sort of offscreen fight breaks out from it, but that could happen even with a few starters).

How would a small number of starters cause a tournment to run faster and more efficiently? You don't fight on all the starters for each match, just one (and maybe another if someone counterpicks it).

But to constitute a ban, MK has to be "too good" to the point where he can't reasonably be beaten by anyone else. Being imbalanced doesn't automatically make him too good, just really good.

Why should local tournaments count? They aren't the highest level of play (far from it, in fact).

People have argued they would, but the sad truth is they won't. Soul Calibur 3 resulted in people leaving the competative scene, and from what I can tell, Soul Calibur 4 didn't bring any of them back.

That's rediculous... You still have to be a high-level player, yourself in order to be able to play with the big boys. Otherwise we'd see random people winning tournaments instead of M2K.

But the problem is he's beatable by other characters. You can select someone at a 6-4 with him and still win, which is why this whole debate is going on. If he was truly incapable of losing to anyone but another MK like people keep acting, we wouldn't be having this debate.

No, I didn't say that, either. Again: READ MY POST. I was saying we need specific ban criteria so that Marth WON'T be at risk of getting banned since it's obvious he's not as broken, despite also having no disadvantaged matchups.

You completely misunderstood me. I never ONCE said Marth was as good as MK, I was just saying that he has no bad matchups, so OS's argument that everyone else can be counterpicked isn't true. EDIT: You people need to read my posts. I never once said that Marth was as good as MK!

Those characters are roughly even with him, though. Statistically all of Marth's matchups are either "good" or "neutral" (I don't care what anyone says, 45:55 in either direction is too close to even to claim a clear advantage to the 55, even if Marth is the one with it).

So assuming MK is gone, who counters Marth? Though even if Marth doesn't prove to be broken like MK, I still think we need a better standard for banning rather than "no counterpicks and winning most of the tournaments". After all, it may turn out MK's absence makes another character broken...